Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Windows

Flying Windows

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not establish notability required by WP:N. A run-of-the-mill screen saver is unlikely to have ever received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Books on Windows do mention it, but the coverage is both trivial and quantitatively small; furthermore, they do it to make their coverage of Windows more comprehensive. (They only make Windows more notable.) Codename Lisa (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The flying windows screen savers is not run of the mill. whether it's independently notable or not is a bit of a borderline question in my opinion, but as screen savers go, it's quite significant: default screen saver for an (unfortunately) major OS. --Slashme (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A binary ripple effect that millions of screen savers implement is, by definition, run-of-the-mill. But I don't even know why you bother commenting on this part of the nomination at all. As for being the default of something, we delete articles on "default"s left and right when lack of notability is shown. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar is an example. For a example of a "default" that has notability, please see Bliss (image) article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]